The Sustainable Brain

The Sustainable Brain
I offer the following application of current brain research as an explanatory frame for our evolutionary viability, our sustainability. Because satisfying models and theories are parsimonious and diagramable - elegant, I proffer a single map of the brain segmented into four property spaces by two intersecting vectors. A series of concentric circles indicates the degree of comprehensiveness, expansiveness, complexity or inclusiveness. One should, however, consider that the range of the circle may be larger in one quadrant than another.

From mapping, I shift to primary characteristics of the action of the brain, the processing that occurs in each region of the brain.
From primary characteristics of the processing, I shift to the characteristics of the output of each region.
I shift to the language used by the AI community to describe the processing an artificial brain might do. This is an attempt to merge processing with characteristics
I then offer a map of the four products these algorithms might produce and propose they are the necessary and sufficient root metaphors for comprehensive understanding of real world phenomena. Steve Popper’s world hypotheses did not map the same way these do, but his intension was identical to mine. Martin Groder helped me clarify these and introduced me to Steve Popper's work.
I then offer the four paths of inquiry that would drive the production of the “products” above. We are now in the realm of conscious individual actors performing thought. We are beyond structure and in the action or the verb.

I then offer a pair of emotional maps that result from the thought actions or actual behavior that result from the processing above. The first map reflects failure to process effectively. The second reflects success. We are in the realm of psychology and anticipating that the brain itself is engineered to induce these “primaries”; both positive and negative.
Shame is an internal experience of self-doubt and anxiety related to the ability to measure up to expectations. It is not fear in the sense of “threat”, but a sense of being off the mark, being stained or being unfit to be a member. When people say they are ashamed, they usually share an inability or inadequacy – “I have a club foot”, “I was unable to stay chaste”, “I was never smart enough to graduate”.

In regard to Curiosity versus Fear. The fear that I mean here is a visceral fear, the kind that induces flight…an animal fear. It is the danger felt by a deer when a wolf is in the neighborhood. When the fear is absent, and the animal is “safe”, the animal relaxes and explores the environment. A person does as well. That is what I mean by curiosity… it is the open-minded exploration of the environment. Those who are prejudiced…. who shut out alternatives or new ways of thinking and being feel a visceral threat to their narrow perspectives on the world. They feel safe in the confines of their fanatic belief. They are not free to be curious…. instead they censor.

In regard to Guilt and Meaning/Purpose. The guilty are guilty of deeds or actions. Implied is their knowledge of good or right behavior or standards and expectations and their violation of it despite their knowing what is right. That is why the guilty are punished. It is because they exercised their will against the law or the rule or the standard. A guilty act is committed against a meaning or a value the community has set as a norm, it contradicts the purpose or direction of the group that the act is committed against. If I subscribe to a set of values, to a set of “meanings”….. if I subscribe to a “purpose” for my actions; then behavior I engage in that contravenes those meanings or purposes is labeled as a sin or a criminal act…. acts for which I am guilty. If, however I am comfortable and congruent in my behavior with the meaning and purpose for my actions, I am guilt free and focused.

It is interesting to consider the link between despair and love/connection and classification. At first glance it seems counter-intuitive that grouping things would be the path to loving them. Upon consideration, however, the fact that people automatically respond as if objects and beings are good or bad or strong or weak or fast or slow or stable or unstable (these are Charles Osgood’s primary semantic factors) within their classifications is largely responsible for much of what motivates human behavior. As the believer opposes the infidel, one clan the other families, one team other teams; all are shaping classifications of who to love and be connected to: and love leads to further refinement as illustrated by the Eskimo who so loves his snow that he has many categories for it and the Zulu who so loves his cattle that he has many categories for their coloration. While love or connection may begin in olfactory or other chemical familiarity and affinity, it ends in making of meaningful groups of things in an individual’s world and provides the underlying grouping that gets operated upon when the linking of things together occurs in mechanical processing and the chain of causality occurs in systemic processing.

This final map takes the four pairs of “personal” emotional resources and applies them to any continuously viable entity; such as a person, a family, or a corporation. These are the labels used to describe organizational sustainability.